Debates of May 27th, 2024

Canada Labour Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-58.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #774

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Alleged Breach of Speaker's Impartiality—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, May 21, by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie concerning the Speaker's alleged lack of impartiality.

In his intervention, the member stated that the Liberal Party's promotional material used to advertise the Speaker's participation in an upcoming constituency event contained inflammatory partisan language targeting the leader of the official opposition. According to the member, this constitutes an unacceptable display of partisanship that calls into question the Speaker's impartiality. As such, this matter required immediate priority consideration. The member for La Prairie also intervened to support this position.

The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie further contended that the standard procedure to raise concerns over the Speaker's conduct, namely through a substantive motion proposed during Routine Proceedings following the appropriate notice, is deficient insofar as its consideration can be easily adjourned or interrupted. Once interrupted, such a motion is then transferred to the Order Paper under Government Orders, leaving it in the hands of the government to reschedule a resumption of the item. The member posited that the government could forestall a decision of the House on such a motion indefinitely, potentially frustrating the will of the majority of the House on such a critical question.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby also intervened on this matter. He challenged the premise of the question of privilege, which in his view was based on an incorrect interpretation of the events and of the rules governing motions on the conduct of the Speaker. The member also reiterated his concerns regarding the recent attacks on chair occupants. While this last issue is perturbing, I will not address it. My ruling will focus solely on the matter raised by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

While I did not expect to have to rule on another question of privilege regarding the Speaker, it does give me the opportunity to expand on my ruling of December 5. At the time, while I did find that there was a prima facie question of privilege on another matter questioning the Speaker's impartiality, I also stated at page 19501 of the Debates the following:

In the future, if members wish to take issue with the conduct of the Speaker, rather than raising points of order or questions of privilege, I would instead direct them to place a substantive motion on notice.

I did so to emphasize that there is a procedure in place to address concerns about the conduct of the Speaker. That process is outlined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323: “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” This process is also in line with the precedents we have from June 1, 1956, which can be found at page 4540 of the Debates, and from March 13, 2000, at page 4397 of the Debates.

While it is true that the House has a process for withdrawing or reaffirming its confidence in the Speaker through a substantive motion, the current rules for considering these motions do not seem responsive enough to deal with this type of issue.

As members might imagine, few precedents exist in this area, besides those already cited and the December ruling. In another decision, rendered on March 9, 1993, on a question of privilege relating to the participation of a deputy Speaker in outside partisan activities, Speaker Fraser also stated that a well-established official procedure exists to reprove the conduct of chair occupants. While Speaker Fraser did not find a prima facie question of privilege, he did state that the level of impartiality expected of the Speaker should be higher than that of other chair occupants. While he could have insisted that members place a motion on notice, Speaker Fraser instead took the matter under advisement as a question of privilege. In so doing, he took the context into account.

I also believe it is vital to account for the specifics of each situation. Indeed, it may be necessary to separate grievances regarding the way chair occupants manage House proceedings from those relating to their conduct outside the House. Members no doubt regularly disagree with the decisions rendered in the House, and I could not allow every decision to rise to a question of privilege or point of order. However, outside activities that result in complaints are far less common and should therefore be dealt with in an extraordinary manner.

In December, I ruled that the House itself should as soon as possible pronounce itself on the Speaker's conduct outside the House and the doubts it could raise about his impartiality, and I am of the same opinion today.

In ruling on this matter, I would like to clarify that I am not passing judgment on the alleged facts but rather on the priority these allegations should be given. While a motion could indeed be moved during routine proceedings, such motions are subject to interruptions in proceedings that could delay a decision on them indefinitely. As for opposition motions, they depend on the allotment of a supply day.

Quite clearly, it is in the interest of the whole House to resolve this particular matter quickly and with all due seriousness. As a result, I find that a prima facie question of privilege exists in this case. However, I must point out that a substantive motion placed on notice remains the procedure required to address the conduct of chair occupants during proceedings. I will continue to apply this distinction until the House provides new instructions for dealing with accusations that the Chair is partial based on conduct that occurs outside the House.

I now invite the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie to move his motion.

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the Speaker's ongoing and repetitive partisan conduct outside of the Chamber is a betrayal of the traditions and expectations of his office and a breach of the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities, all of which this House judges to be a serious contempt and, therefore, declares that the office of Speaker shall be vacated effective immediately before the hour of meeting on the next Monday the House sits following the day this resolution is adopted and directs that the election of a Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2), shall be the first order of business at that Monday's sitting of the House.

I regret to stand yet again to declare that the Speaker is a partisan Liberal. I do not say that as a critique or a criticism. While I might do that in a different setting, today I bring that up to say that those are the facts.

The fact is that the Speaker has a very long history of partisan Liberal political activity. As a young person, the Speaker was the president of the Young Liberals of Canada. He took an activist role in that position, building Liberal organizations and connecting with Liberals from coast to coast. I was involved in young Conservative politics, so I know a bit about what is involved there. I can tell members that nobody gets involved in youth politics because they are non-partisan. It is a very partisan environment.

He went on to be a staff member for several Liberal cabinet ministers. As a matter of fact, he was so well known within Liberal politics that Stéphane Dion appointed him to be the national director of the Liberal Party. After being elected, he took on what is probably one of the most partisan positions in the House of Commons, which is becoming the pit bull to defend the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary.

I say all of that simply to give context to why many in the House were concerned or had reservations about electing the member for Hull—Aylmer to become the Speaker of the House of Commons. It was evident that the member who is now the Speaker had a very partisan history, and he did it very well. As a matter of fact, oftentimes he would disrupt committees and agitate processes and procedures to try to defend the Prime Minister, especially when the Prime Minister was coming under scrutiny for the litany of scandals that he has now found himself in.

The Speaker has a very important role in the House of Commons. Yes, it is always going to be or, for the most part, throughout our entire history, it has been a person who is elected from among us. Moreover, we all get here because of partisan activities. We went and campaigned against other parties or other individuals within our local communities. We eventually got elected to this place. People who are looking to become the Speaker are not here through a different mechanism than the rest of us; however, the Speaker usually has a history of working well with other parties and with other members of the House. That is not the case for the member for Hull—Aylmer. As a matter of fact, he has aggressively defended the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office over the procedures and the rights and privileges of members in the House.

To give some level of context and contrast, I would like to draw to members' attention a bit of recent history. When the House of Commons, through its committees, had requested, in many ways, in different ways, information about the documents that had not been forthcoming regarding the firing of lab scientists from the Winnipeg lab, the predecessor to the current Speaker went so far as to sue the government, the Liberal government, to defend the decision of members of the House of Commons. He was elected as a Liberal member of Parliament. He did this because the Speaker serves as the servant of the decisions of the House of Commons. They are there to execute the will and the decisions of the collective House of Commons. I am sure that the former Speaker was uncomfortable with launching a lawsuit against his own party's government, but he did it, because that was the role of the Speaker.

To contrast that and to, I guess, draw the members' attention to comments made by the current Speaker, on November 16, 2020, I was serving as the chair of the ethics committee. The committee was reviewing the unbelievable revelations that had started to flow out, the allegations of huge amounts of money being given to the Prime Minister's friends during the COVID payouts, specifically with regard to up to a billion dollars that had been committed to the WE organization.

The ethics committee began a process of looking into that organization; in due course, it discovered that, previous to getting the commitment of nearly a billion dollars, this organization had given significant amounts of money to the Prime Minister's family. It was in these discoveries that the committee was looking for more information from the government, but the government was not forthcoming with that documentation. The members of the committee, including members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, came together and constructed a motion that was being debated at the committee. The Liberals, through a filibuster, were refusing to allow that motion to ever get to a vote on requiring the government to produce documentation. This documentation would either prove or disprove information about money given to the Prime Minister's family members from the WE organization, which later got a commitment of nearly a billion dollars.

In a lengthy intervention at that committee, the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is now the Speaker, was leading the charge on behalf of the Liberals. At the committee meeting, he said, “If this motion ends up passing, as the opposition holds majority at the committee, its validity will be immediately questioned and there will be serious questions about the ability to enforce it.” He did not slip up: He went on to say, “Mr. Chair, this is very important. Let me repeat. If this motion ends up passing, as the opposition holds the majority at this committee, its validity will be immediately questioned and there will be serious questions about its ability to be enforced.”

It is not wrong for a member of Parliament to get elected and defend their government with all their ability. I hope to have the privilege to do that. What is inappropriate is for somebody who serves as the Speaker to continue that conduct. That is the part that seems confusing to the current Speaker. As a matter of fact, when he ran to be the Speaker, he acknowledged that he had had many partisan positions and played partisan games; he said that he wanted to be judged by his conduct going forward. He asked for us to trust him. He said that, effectively, the proof would be in the pudding. We have some facts that we should go through.

The other thing he said was that the Speaker should be a referee and not a participant in the game. I can tell members that he has had more headlines for his misconduct since he has been in the position of Speaker than have the vast majority of members of Parliament in the House.

We had other reservations about the fact that he had been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner of a breach of rules with regard to ethical behaviour. However, those were secondary to what we believe needs to be a non-partisan behaviour of any Speaker of the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, the revelation of partisan activity has really been historic. This is a type of history nobody should ever want to make. I do not think there has ever been a Canadian Speaker who has been a legend and been found guilty of so many partisan involvements while in the Speaker's Chair. I will just go through a few. The list has now grown to such a length that it would take me much longer than my speech would allow to go through them all.

It was discovered that, last October, he called up a former member of Parliament, who is now an opinion writer, and asked that person to write an op-ed slamming the official opposition for its effort to hold the government to account.

Next, in November, it was discovered that he attended and spoke at an event for his provincial Liberal association in Pontiac, for his provincial counterparts in Quebec. They were soliciting support from the community for the upcoming election. Obviously, they were looking for financial support.

In December, and this is when it all broke loose and became national news, the Speaker undertook to videotape a partisan video tribute that was broadcast at the Ontario Liberal Party's leadership convention. The tribute was for the outgoing interim leader of the Liberal Party. However, it was wrong on so many levels: It was at a Liberal Party convention where they were obviously soliciting support for the next general election. Yes, the tribute was specific to an individual who was leaving an interim position, but he would also be seeking re-election, so it is not as though it was just some tribute.

However, far worse than just paying tribute to a Liberal candidate as a non-partisan Speaker is that the Speaker recorded it in his full Speaker's robe and in his Speaker's office. One would think somebody somewhere would have raised alarm bells. However, it gets worse: When it was all made public, his defence was that he did not think anybody was going to find out. He said that he did not know it was going to be put on the big screen; he thought he could get away without anybody knowing.

Then the Liberal Party, again coming to his defence, said that, in fact, it was not clear to him that it was going to be exposed to the public. All of them in agreement believe that it would have been all right if it just had not become public. That in and of itself raises a massive question of conduct and of character.

In the days that followed the fallout of that scandalous video, the Speaker jetted off in the midst of a sitting week. It happens rarely, if ever, that a Speaker does so, but the current Speaker did. He went down to Washington. We would have imagined he was going there for some very important, high-level meeting that obviously would have required him to leave Parliament; however, we then found out he actually went there to pay tribute to a good Liberal he came to know while he was the president of the Young Liberals. He made another tribute to a Liberal while he was travelling on the Speaker's budget.

Now we have the revelations of this summertime evening with the Honourable Speaker of the House. The details of the event have been circulated, and they are interesting. They are very partisan. They attack the official opposition and the leader of the official opposition. I had the opportunity to actually go through other invites that were posted to the same website, the Liberal Party of Canada's website about events in local communities. By far the most partisan descriptor of any event posted on that entire website is attributed to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Then, of course, we have the cover-up. It is all fine because now the Liberal Party of Canada, obviously a disinterested and independent body, has come racing to the Speaker's defence. It says that he did not know it was going to be posted there. Therefore, it is okay, and the Liberal Party of Canada will take full responsibility. It says that was the party's doing and that this is a template it uses for all kinds of events on the website.

I went through all the events. There is only one other event that has the same text, and it was posted in the midst of this scandal. It is not as though it was there for a long period of time. It was just recently posted, and it is the only other event with the same descriptor. This is not a boilerplate template. This is another effort by the Liberal Party to cover things up.

However, the interesting part is this: If one looks at the fine print at the bottom of the website, it reads, “Team [Prime Minister] events are posted by local volunteer teams.” There is also a “learn more” link, as well as a link to “submit a ticketed event.” My party does not know when I hold a local event unless I tell them.

My local association is very effective at doing the good work of raising money and political support in my community. The Conservative Party of Canada does not organize these things; they are local events by local volunteers and other folks.

The interesting part is that the former PMO staff member and former president of the Hull–Aylmer Federal Liberal Association now serves as the Speaker's chief of staff. It does not seem to me that the individual would have been appointed because he was really well versed in parliamentary procedure. It is clear what his credentials were.

I say all of this to say that he knows how the system works. Nothing gets fed to the party without somebody at the local level sending it there. The event was clearly a decision of the local folks. Any member of Parliament in this place, when they are expected to show up at an event, does not have the event planned without their knowledge. Therefore the Speaker knew about the event, and there is a chief of staff who is very politically astute and has been engaged at the local association level who is now serving as the chief of staff to the Speaker. Nothing checks out about these revelations and the now new explanation that the Speaker has given.

The Speaker has demonstrated countless times that he is unfit to be a non-partisan Speaker. He is a very effective partisan Liberal. We have lost trust in his ability to govern this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting hearing the Conservatives, not once, not twice and not even three times, but constantly having it in for the Speaker.

I was not here on the day of the election of the Speaker because I was working on my daughter's campaign in a provincial election at that point, and I could not be here. Coming back, I heard comments in regard to the Conservatives' shock and surprise that the Speaker actually won. From day one, the Conservatives have actually not supported the Speaker. I find that unfortunate. I will not ask the reasons as to why—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I will tell you.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member says he will tell me why. Maybe he could expand on his heckle. Could the member tell me why?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, the majority of my speaking time was spent explaining why.

The evidence mounted even before the Speaker had taken the Speaker's chair. It is not a crime for somebody who has a very robust partisan political history to get elected. Many of us do. The issue is that the Speaker has continued his aggressive partisan behaviour throughout his time in the House of Commons, and everybody knows about it. I read testimony of where the now Speaker said that even if a parliamentary committee were to pass a request for information, he would disregard it. The Liberal government would disregard it.

He did not defend the interests of Parliament. He did not defend the procedures and the policies of transparency that ensure that Canadians get the information that their elected officials request in this place. The Speaker said he would ensure that it never saw the light of day. This is in direct contrast to his predecessor, who, I am sure reluctantly, sued his own party's government to get information that had been requested by the House.

It was clearly evident that the present Speaker would always put the Liberal Party ahead of Canadians and ahead of Parliament every single time. That is why we did not vote for him.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for stating the grounds on which we seek the removal of the Speaker of the House.

Can my colleague expand and provide some examples of the partisanship displayed by the Speaker of the House in terms of how he manages proceedings in the House itself?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, there have been many times. I have played a number of sports, and from time to time players get frustrated with the referee. I have been there and done that. When a call comes in the player's favour, they are happy, but when it does not, of course they claim that the referee is favouring the other side. However, the current Speaker, I believe, consistently in the House has heard one thing on this side of the House and not heard it on the other side.

Quite frankly, folks can decide for themselves, but the national media was seized with an episode of the demonstration of what I believe I have just described. When the Prime Minister used language that some would consider inappropriate, the Speaker asked him to withdraw it. The Prime Minister did not; he changed it up a bit and moved on.

The leader of the official opposition, in the same question period, did almost the identical thing. As a matter of fact, he stood several times to say that he would replace the word that had been used with an alternative word, which the Prime Minister had just done. The Prime Minister replaced the word he had used. The leader of the official opposition requested several times to do the exact same thing, and the Speaker had a different ruling for him to the one he had for the Prime Minister. He was clearly partisan in his rulings that day, and the media all saw it.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment, rather than a question, for my colleague.

The current Speaker was elected on September 27, 2023, just eight months ago. The government is well aware that the Bloc Québécois called for the Speaker to step down after a second incident. Now, there have been three incidents. I have a question for my colleague. If the motion is not adopted, what should we expect?

Right now, the term that is being used and that we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, really like is “distraction”. The Speaker is a distraction that Parliament cannot afford. The Speaker is supposed to be the picture of impartiality in the House, so we are asking, for a second time, for the Speaker to step down. That is a comment, not a question, but I would be pleased to hear what my colleague has to say, if he cares to respond.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely clear that nearly half of the members of the House have already called for the Speaker to step down. Last time, following the video and all of the evidence that was provided to the NDP, the New Democrats said, yes, what the Speaker did was wrong, and, based on the information, they believed that the Speaker just did not know what his role should be. However, they did say that if it happened again, they would also have to vote to have the Speaker removed.

We know what the Liberals are going to do because the Liberals believe that the current Speaker serves their purposes very well. The question is this: What will the NDP do? If its members vote with the Bloc and the Conservative Party, the Speaker will be removed. Therefore, will the NDP be true to its word or will it find another reason to yet again support the corrupt Liberal government?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the role of Speaker and the neutrality of that role are fundamental to Canadian democracy. The people whom we all represent believe that this place can make laws and decide things like spending a budget fairly. We are now in a situation where the Speaker has lost the confidence of the House. To me, it appears as though the NDP and the Liberals are making a decision on whether or not he should go based on their supply and confidence agreement rather than on maintaining the dignity of the Chair.

What happened in the last instance is that a partisan event was advertised on the Liberal website. This is the third time. In sports, it is three strikes and a person is out. Can my colleague reiterate why it is so important, given everything that has been said here today, that the Speaker resign so the appearance of democracy can once again be restored for the Canadian public?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the question is a very important one. I do not stand here as myself; I stand here as the voice of those who sent me here, as does every member of the chamber.

What an idea it is that the Speaker would in fact be engaging in partisan preferences in the House and not enforcing the rules as they are set out to ensure fair play, not ensuring that all members are treated equally and not ensuring that the procedures are conducted in such a way that we can be sure as to what the voices of Canadians are and what the outcomes are in terms of both.

The Speaker oversees all kinds of things, including votes in the House of Commons. He oversees the language that is used in the House of Commons. The Speaker oversees all kinds of administration that goes on outside the chamber in terms of the resources that are allocated to different members of Parliament as well.

The Speaker plays such a central role in defending our democratic institution. If the Speaker is deemed to be partisan in his role, how can Canadians have any faith in this institution anymore? We are their voices, and if we do not believe that the Speaker is conducting himself in a fair manner, how can Canadians? The Speaker has to go.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for York—Simcoe, Carbon Pricing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the comments that I have heard, both just in the last 25 minutes or so and previously, concern me a great deal. They concern me, first and foremost, as a parliamentarian. I have been involved at the provincial and federal levels of politics for over 30 years now, and I have had the opportunity to work with Speakers of all political stripes: New Democrats; Progressive Conservatives; Conservatives, here; and Liberals, here in Ottawa. They play a very important role in our whole institution of Parliament, for which I have grown, from the days in which I served in the military, to have a great deal of respect.

Our institutions mean a great deal, and we do need to be respectful of them and never take them for granted. There are going to be times that we will disagree with something that a Speaker might be saying. I know when I was in opposition in the third party in the far corner over there, I received treatment from the current opposition House leader when he was the Speaker that I did not appreciate. I think, for example, of concurrence motions, where a concurrence motion would be moved, and then I would attempt to stand up and speak, and be instantly shut down, even though today on concurrence motions, members are given all sorts of latitude and provided opportunity to speak.

I can recall a number of incidents from the Manitoba legislature when I would have real issues, even at times when there was an uproar a Speaker walked out of the chamber, and we continued to have debates, but I have always respected the Chair, even when I was asked to leave the chamber on one occasion. I respect the institution,. We have witnessed over the last number of years that has not been the case coming from the Conservative Party.

There is a lack of respect for the institution, and that also includes the Speaker and the chair that the Speaker holds. The member spent so much of his time talking about the person, and justifiably so, given the very nature of the ruling that has been made, but the biggest problem I have with the comment is that he is talking about how, at the end of the day, they did not support this Speaker. The Conservative Party never supported this Speaker.

What was their argument? It was not because of anything that happened from the moment that he was elected as Speaker to today, but because they did not vote for the Speaker. They did not vote for him, because they did not like the Speaker. I made reference to that in my question. At the end of the day, the response was very clear: “We don't like the Speaker. We didn't vote for the Speaker, and nothing has changed.”

There is no such thing as a perfect human being. Mistakes do happen, and we saw that mistake that had taken place with this particular Speaker. An apology followed, even before, from what I understand, a motion being brought to the chamber.

We had a debate at that time, with regard to the Speaker, which ultimately went to the PROC committee. Then the PROC committee came back with a ruling. The Speaker, again, apologized for what had taken place and the disruption.

That is what the opposition whip was talking about in criticizing the Speaker today. What is the offence that has led to the motion and the ruling that we have before us? The offence is for something that appeared to be inappropriately advertising, or whatever, communicating an event. The Liberal Party of Canada has taken full responsibility for that posting and apologized to the Speaker. The Conservative Party is so upset about that incident that it is introducing another motion of non-confidence in the Speaker, a Speaker who Conservative members voted against when he first put his name forward. They have been very clear about that.

The incident was based on something the Speaker had nothing to do with and a formal apology was provided.

To me what that speaks to the Conservatives' focus. Their focus seems to be more about telling Canadians that the institution here in Ottawa is broken. We can see that by their behaviour time and time again. Conservatives are trying to say that we cannot pass legislation, for example. They are trying to say that everything is a problem inside the chamber when, in essence, the problem is not the government. The problem is that the Conservatives, in opposition, are doing whatever they can to destabilize things or make an argument about the institution being broken when it is not broken. They know that, but it does not prevent them. Despite their heckling across the way, they cannot legitimately say that this institution is broken because it is not broken. That does not prevent the Conservatives from going out and about spreading misinformation. Now they are trying to say it is the institution of the Speaker's chair. The Speaker did nothing. The Liberal Party apologized for posting something that should never have been posted and made that a formal apology to the Speaker of the House of Commons. However, the Conservatives are trying to blame the Speaker.

There is something wrong with that picture, but the Conservatives genuinely do not care. At least, those in the House leadership genuinely do not care. Imagine if someone in the Conservative back room posted something on one of the Conservative MPs and then we started to challenge that individual MP for what was posted, and that MP stood up to say, “Oh, well, it's my fault so I will apologize, even though the Conservative Party of Canada apologized for doing something.”

This makes no sense unless it is a personal, vindictive attempt at character assassination from the Conservative Party and the leadership. There is an argument to be made for that. That is why I posed the question about why they did not even vote. The opposition whip admitted that the Conservative Party had no intention of voting for the current Speaker. Why does that matter? The way I see it is that the Conservative Party was shell-shocked when the announcement was made and based its argument on how political the Speaker was before he was elected to the position.

They said he was a parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister and he worked for the Liberal Party of Canada and that is the reason he should be disqualified to be Speaker. That is the reason they did not vote for him. Those were the red-flag warnings that they espoused as to why he would never be a good Speaker, saying he was too partisan. That is absolutely ridiculous, especially coming from the Conservative Party.

Let us think about it. The Conservatives have a gentleman who is the House leader for the Conservative Party. He was first elected in 2004. That is the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. Let us imagine this. He became the Speaker of the House in 2011. I will bet a McDonald's Happy Meal that at the end of the day I could pull out many quotes from Hansard where we would see the Speaker at the time, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, being very critical of the current government. I can guarantee that. I can guarantee that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle actually was a very partisan individual prior to becoming the Speaker of the House of Commons.

What happened after the member's little stint as the Speaker? After being the Speaker for a number of years, he realized that he might not win by running for the Speaker again, so he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. Therefore, oh my goodness, it is okay for a Conservative Speaker to be politically engaged, but it is not okay if we elect a Liberal member of Parliament who was politically engaged before he was a Speaker. That seems to be a double standard. Why is there the double standard? Why is it okay for a Conservative to be politically engaged, active, run for Speaker and be Speaker, but not okay for an active Liberal to become the Speaker? Let the Conservatives explain that one to me. Let them explain why the Conservative Party, as a collective whole, decided to vote against the current Speaker.

After the Conservatives have tried to justify that one, they can explain this to me. When the Speaker used bad judgment in terms of a video, upon realizing his mistake where what he thought was a video that was going to be shared internally ended up being shared in a public fashion, it did not take Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens or even Liberals for him to recognize that it was inappropriate. He came forward and apologized, but still, we had the privilege issue. The matter came before the House and understandably so. It actually went to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The procedure and House affairs committee dealt with the issue and came up with a series of recommendations. Let me read what those recommendations were:

That the Speaker undertake the appropriate steps to reimburse a suitable amount for the use of parliamentary resources that were not related to the performance of parliamentary functions.

That was done.

Recommendation 2 states:

That the House Administration be tasked with preparing, as part of the briefing binder, guidelines for any future Speaker of the House that presents clear boundaries for impartiality and non-partisanship.

Recommendation 2 was something that was important to see happen. One would think that this would happen when we get a new Speaker in place and, as a result of the issue going to PROC, we learned something. It is going to happen, which is a good thing.

Recommendation 3 states:

That the Speaker issue another apology—

I underline the word “another”, because he did apologize already.

—clearly stating that filming the video both in his office, and in his robes was inappropriate, his remorse for the situation, and a clear outline of what he and his office will do to ensure this does not happen again; and that the principle of respect, impartiality, and decorum are values he will continue to prioritize as Speaker.

The member says that he did not. That is part of the problem, if one listens to nothing but the Conservative spin coming from the bench, from behind the curtains. The Speaker did apologize. I heard the apology, as many others heard the apologies. I saw the remorse that was there. I believe it was genuine, from the heart, not only the second time but also the first time that he apologized. Excuse me but, as I said, humans are not perfect. A mistake was made and was recognized, and an apology was given. He did that.

As one says: How many mistakes? This incident we are talking about right now was a party mistake. It is a party that made the posting. Do a Google search on it, if one likes.

I believe that the Conservative Party is being misguided. One of the questions that was put to the introducer of the motion itself was about how he “manages proceedings in the House”. I believe that is the quote. I was writing it down and was listening to some of the comments.

I have been on the opposition side for far more years than I have been on the government side. I can tell members that sitting in that chair can be a challenge at times. I know that. I see that. I have also witnessed that the Speaker who is being referenced today is nowhere near how the Conservatives try to portray him.

When they say “partial”, listen to the question periods. They get all upset, and they start yelling from the benches and all that kind of stuff. If the Speaker tries to calm them down, then, they will be yelling all sorts of things, even directed at the Speaker. We see challenges inside the chamber and outside the chamber, harassing and challenging the Speaker. I have never seen that sort of a challenge taking place, whether it is here in Ottawa or inside the Manitoba legislature, to the degree that I have seen this particular Speaker be abused verbally inside the House and outside the House, without justification whatsoever. There is a lack of respect toward the Speaker's chair, let alone toward the individual, that I have witnessed.

Does one think that one feels that the rulings of the Speaker are always on our side? More often than not, I always think the Speaker favours the opposition side because I see the uproar and the loudness of the opposition as they try to interfere with ministers asking questions, and then, all of a sudden, we will heckle once or twice, and we are told to shush, from the Speaker's chair. We would say to listen to the other side.

I believe this is something very personal for the Conservative Party. They did not support the Speaker when he was first elected. We know that. They do not support him today. They do not support anything that looks good here in the institution of Parliament. We see the behaviour that tries to demonstrate, as much as possible, that this Parliament, as an institution, is broken, when in fact it is not. I believe the Conservatives are dead wrong in the assertions they're making today.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions for the parliamentary secretary.

First, if the Speaker does not do the honourable thing and resign, is the member going to vote to have the Speaker step down? If his answer is no, then I want to know how many strikes, mistakes or errors of judgment he expects the Speaker to be tied to before he would ask him to step down.

As for my second question, the parliamentary secretary has alluded to the fact that he somehow knows how I or all Conservatives voted when we elected the Speaker in the first place. I am wondering how he has access to secret ballots.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I guess I take the word of the committee member who introduced a motion that said we, with “we” being the Conservative Party, voted against the current Speaker. Maybe the member should tell his House leader or opposition whip that they should not be taking his vote for granted because that is what was definitely implied.

It was not the Speaker's direct responsibility for the posting that has ultimately brought forward this motion. It was the Liberal Party of Canada's administrative wing, which recognized its mistake and apologized to the Speaker. It is in the news; it was in the news, and even though it is not the Speaker's fault, it does not matter from the Conservative Party's position. It is like punishing someone for something they did not do, and that is what the Conservative Party is doing today.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague put a lot of blame on the Conservatives. He told us that there was a year where the Conservative Speaker was also partisan. That may be true. Perhaps there is a double standard here. However, that in itself is not an argument to defend anything unacceptable that is currently happening. I would like to ask my Conservative colleague the same question.

How many mistakes, how many lapses and how many partisan actions will it take before my colleague opposite finds the Speaker's behaviour to be unacceptable?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I understand the Bloc is going to be speaking next, so maybe it could provide very clear evidence or make a very clear comment on the Liberal Party of Canada taking full responsibility for the posting, apologizing to the Speaker and, ultimately, to all Canadians. It was publicized. The Speaker was given a formal apology because he had nothing to do with what we are talking about. It was the Liberal Party of Canada, and it has apologized for it.

Why would the Bloc then blame someone for doing something that he did not do? That is a legitimate question, and I hope we get a very clear answer on that.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing how the member for Winnipeg North is so partisan that he defends a partisan Speaker with such veracity.

I will ask a similar question to the one just asked by my friend from the Bloc about this. There really are only two opposition parties because the third one is in a coalition with the government. Last December, basically, the Bloc expressed no confidence in the Speaker because of the partisan nature of what he did with the video. He did it a week later in Washington; the list grows. Apparently being a Liberal, generally, as we know from the Prime Minister, who sets the standard, saying “I am sorry” countless times makes up for all of one's mistakes, whether one breaches the Conflict of Interest Act or anything else, and there are no consequences.

What is the consequence to the Speaker, consistently, at least once a month now, it appears, for making partisan statements and for being part of partisan organizations, many of them about himself and some on behalf of others? What is that number? Is it 10, 20 or 30 apologies before the Liberals recognize that the neutrality of the Speaker has been destroyed by the Speaker?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative caucus collectively needs to have a huddle on this. I do not think they have actually read any of the media stories. What took place is an incident, and the Liberal Party of Canada has taken full responsibility for that incident and has formally apologized to the Speaker, and through that, to all Canadians. It was not the Speaker, so it's almost like saying that we are going to punish little Johnny for stealing a chocolate bar, when it was not Johnny who stole the chocolate bar.

Why does the Conservative Party want to punish the Speaker if it was not the Speaker's responsibility for the incident that is being called into question?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, this business about chocolate bars borders on demagoguery. Can we get serious?

The member for Winnipeg North mentioned several times in his speech earlier that opposition members do not like the Speaker. It is not a question of liking or not liking him. We actually have a great deal of respect for the member for Hull—Aylmer. That is not the issue. The issue is confidence. It is not a matter of not liking him; it is a matter of having confidence in this fundamental institution upon which all the rest of the debates are based. In fact, we have an excellent example this evening: All of the government's work is once again being held up because there is a problem of confidence in the Speaker.

Is the member capable of differentiating between the two?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let us simplify it even more. We are debating the proposed motion because of a posting, and that posting was issued through the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party has apologized to the Speaker and, through the Speaker, to Canadians. The Liberal Party is the one to blame. Why should the Speaker have to pay the price not for his mistake, but for the Liberal Party's mistake? I really hope the Bloc members will explain that as clearly as I have explained why we have the motion before us right now.